[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Richard Hartmann <
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at v4escrow.net>
> wrote:
>
> > These were restrictions that existed in the previous version and things
> > seemed to work well with these restrictions/sizes. I hear you and if
> others
> > think the same, we could change the limits.
>
> If /32 becomes the new default/minimum, keeping those limits seems to
> be counter-intuitive.
>

I concur.

And I think it's worth keeping in mind that even a /48 is a ludicrously
enormously large address space.

With a corporate hat on, I think it highly unlikely that anyone
> manager or sales person will be content with less than the absolute
> maximum they can get even if they don't need it. So save for a few
> corporations and maybe temporary allocations, I suspect everyone will
> go for a /32.
>

So do I, especially considering the turn of phrase, which is nearly
guaranteed to instill a fear of running out somehow.

Nobody should run out with a /48.

I think it's somewhat sensible that a LIR should have access to a /32. :)
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130927/8c3e1e5f/attachment.html>